Permanent exclusions - governors' decision-making back in the spotlight

The High Court has recently reviewed the decision-making of a governing body when considering the reinstatement of a pupil who has been subject to a permanent exclusion decision made by a Headteacher.  In R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin), DHCJ Bates decided to quash the Governing Body's decision to uphold the permanent exclusion as there was insufficient evidence provided that the Governing Body had satisfied itself on two key issues.  

The first key issue for the Governing Body to consider, and make a determination on, was whether permanent exclusion was the last resort.  Governors should order reinstatement where they were satisfied that lesser measures were available to the Headteacher to protect others in the school community from serious harm.  This approach aligns with the DfE guidance on exclusions that permanent exclusions can only be imposed as a last resort and that alternatives to exclusion must always be considered.  It is necessary for Governors to be presented with evidence about the alternatives available (and reasons for their dismissal) and for Governors to decide whether that approach was reasonable in the circumstances. 

The second key issue is a decision about whether refusing to allow the pupil to return to the school would be proportionate in terms of the detriment to the pupil arising from the non-return outweighing the interests of other pupils or the remainder of the school community.  This is the test which Governors should apply under paragraph 133 of the current DfE guidance on exclusions - the balancing of the pupil's interests against others in the school community. 

In both cases, it is important that Governors expressly consider both points, and record their decisions on them in the decision letter and notes of their deliberations. 

The decision is one of a number of cases which have expressed the need for robust decision making at the Governing Body stage of the exclusions process.  Governors cannot just rubber stamp the Headteacher's decision; they must test the evidence presented to them and arrive at a fresh reasoned decision based on the facts at the time of the hearing.  Where there is a failure to adhere to the requirements placed on Governors within the exclusion framework, DHCJ Bates also advised IRPs to be ready to quash decisions.  It is therefore important to ensure Governors are trained and fully supported when considering issues of reinstatement after permanent exclusions.

With this case in mind, and in light of the exclusions guidance published by the DfE in July 2026, we are publishing our exclusions toolkit at the start of term to help schools through this increasingly complex process. Additionally, we are available to provide training for senior leaders, trustees and governors on exclusions. Please get in touch to find out more!